Oh ffs who the hell cares anymore.
How odd. In that document, it claims that the NDA is only able to overturn the decision if he feels there was a lack of evidence provided for the initial decision. Based on memory, wasn't the NDA's whole premise based on the NHL not having evidence of its claims?
It's probably just politics, as it has been all along. The league's pandering to the referee union necessitated that they levy the 20 game sentence in the first place, and necessitates that they fight anyone saying it wasn't just.
It's probably just politics, as it has been all along. The league's pandering to the referee union necessitated that they levy the 20 game sentence in the first place, and necessitates that they fight anyone saying it wasn't just.
I don't think it is politics and certainly at this point has nothing to do with the Refs union, although I don't think it ever did to start with. They went for the 20 games and fought it all the way I would think they have done enough for the refs if that was ever a concern.
This has to do with the NHL vs. NHLPA and trying to set the precident in terms of suspensions and arbitrators. Like the Deflategate issue with the NFL, the actual act and players involved is secondary to the league wanting to have the ability to set its own punishments and have the upper hand when going to the arbitrator.
This is 100% NHL vs. NHLPA and the NHL going forward wants to be able to say GB has total authority to make suspensions and the arbitrator ruling puts some doubt in that right now.
The only reason for this (IMO) is to test the waters regarding the Neutral Discipline Arbitrator's authority.
Also, legal statements in the US are similar to those in Canada, but there are some differences that made me say "lolwut?"
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-dismisses-neutral-arbitrator-dennis-wideman-case/
NHL dismisses neutral arbitrator that adjudicated Wideman case.
Just gonna leave this here:
As I said in the Business thread, I stopped caring a long time ago about the whole debacle.
It sets a dangerous precedence here though. Disagree with the NHL and you are gone.
It's super weird that the NHL has the power to fire the person who objectively evaluates their decisions. Where else do you see that?
If an arbitrator ever overturns Bettman's decision, it is an inevitability that they are going to disagree over the matter. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything overturned. But if that's a fireable offence, how in the hell is an arbitrator supposed to do his job? I hope he has legal recourse to file a grievance here.
Not to mention the PA is going to be up in arms that their legal right to an Arbitrator seems to be an empty promise.
Nobody likes a sore loser, Gary.
Actually it is completely normal for an arbitrator to be let go like this, both sides have the power to do it and after the PA lost the Kovalchuk arbitration they dismissed that arbitrator. They essentially have no choice because they believe they are understanding the CBA differently and in this case in particular since the NHL is taking further legal steps it would look bad for their lawsuit if they did keep him on.
NHL gon' NHL. A groups looking to build an arena and get a WHL team into my town, hopefully it gets done before the next lockout.
Good luck on that. I love going to Hitmen games. Can't afford NHL tickets, juniors are really reasonably priced, and still tons of fun